Drinking water polluted with toxic industrial chemical

The DuPont Company has agreed to pay $8.3 million to install water filters in nearly 5,000 southern New Jersey homes whose tap water is polluted with the toxic industrial chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company settled a class action lawsuit brought by residents of Penns Grove, N.J., who charged that their drinking water had been polluted by perfluorochemicals, including C8, emitted from the company’s Chambers Works facility.

The chemical C8 is a member of a family of synthetic industrial substances called perfluorochemicals, which do not break down in the environment and which pollute drinking water and source water in at least 11 states, according to limited investigations by state water agencies, academic scientists, businesses and journalists.

A byproduct of the manufacture of fluorotelomers, used for stain-repellent textile coatings, non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings, C8 has been widely found in people and the environment, due to unregulated industrial discharges and leaching from consumer goods and landfills.

Environmental Working Group has campaigned for eight years to restrict perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a likely human carcinogen, endocrine-disrupting chemical and reproductive toxin that for 50 years.

“For years, thousands of people who live in southern New Jersey have been drinking water polluted with the toxic industrial chemical C8,” EWG senior scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D. said. “DuPont has disregarded public health by waiting for a federal court order before providing the community with filtered water. “

On February 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a nationwide plan to require water utilities to test drinking water for 28 contaminants currently unregulated by federal law, including C8 and five other perfluorinated chemicals.

“EPA’s decision to test for C8 in water supplies nationwide is a step in the right direction,” Naidenko said. “We cannot afford to delay protecting Americans from this dangerous chemical any longer.”

-

Literature:

EWG, DuPont to pay $8.3 Million, March 21, 2011

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment and can be found at www.ewg.org

Have you noticed that many pacifiers contain nanoparticles of silver these days, and is that good? The manufacturers tell us this process makes the pacifier anti-bacterial, but why not just rinse it with soap and water?

What, come to think of it, are nanoparticles?

Manmade nanoparticles are groups of atoms manufactured from atoms in other materials, mainly carbon and metals, arranged into a new product, and characterized by their fantastically small size. They are between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers in size (in at least one dimension), that is, between one and 100 billionths of a meter. To give you an idea of how small that is, it would take eight hundred 100 nanometer-size particles side by side to match the width of a human hair. (The definition is still in flux. Particles up to 300nm in one dimension can also be called nanomaterials and can also have toxic properties.) Nanomaterials can be seen only with powerful microscopes.

The really essential point is, that they have unique chemical properties that differ from the properties of their larger scaled components.

Let’s get to the bottom line right here and now: products with nano ingredients are increasingly used in electronics, medicine, personal care products (even ones labeled as ‘organic’) and many other applications. The food and agricultural industries are using nanotechnologies to manufacture foods, food packaging, more potent pesticides, and more. A European report says these uses are “bringing in a fortune” to their manufacturers.(1) But none of the uses have been proved safe. I wouldn’t stick a silverized pacificer in my grandchild’s mouth nor clothe him in nano-impregnated clothing. At least, not now.

No one knows just what these particles can do to humans, especially to children, nor to plants or wildlife, but what we do know so far is not reassuring. As consumers and parents, we are at a disadvantage because manufacturers do not have to disclose the use of nanoparticles on product labels (see below for help with that). Furthermore, there’s no one in the world regulating the manufacture or use of nanomaterials; nor is any public agency tracking them, so it’s virtually impossible to find out how many “nano” consumer products are on the market and which merchandise could be called “nano.”

Hundreds of nano products (as far as anyone can tell) are made from silver, which has anti-bacterial properties. Nanosilver has been incorporated into socks, tee shirts, underpants and other clothing, manufactured mainly in China, South Korea and other Asian countries – then marketed as germ-killing and odor-free. It’s also been added to toothpastes, shampoos, cosmetics, deodorants and sunscreen (allowing the chemicals to penetrate the skin more easily). And coated onto computer keyboards and mousse; added to toothbrushes, food storage containers, lightswitches. No one knows how much nanosilver is now in use.

In fact, because of its antibacterial properties, nanosilver should already be a regulated product. Silver itself, more toxic to aquatic plants and animals than any metal except mercury, is classified as an environmental hazard by EPA, and, silver nanomaterials (because of their higher surface area) release their toxic silver ions more readily than the larger forms (2) A drop of nanosilver has the polluting strength of a ton of silver. Fabrics laced with silver nanoparticles release those particles when the fabric is exposed to artificial human sweat, one study showed.(3). EPA has not yet figured out what to do though the agency is proposing to grant conditional approval to a pesticide containing nanosilver.

Research has shown that nanoparticles can penetrate into places larger particles cannot go, such as through our “blood-brain barrier” which would otherwise stop toxic molecules passing from the blood into the brain. The particles also find their way into vital organs including the kidneys and liver, but precisely what they do to them has yet to be fully investigated. Researchers in the United Kingdom have found some nanoparticles in common household items can damage DNA without even penetrating the cells (the nanoparticles transmit signals through a protective barrier of human tissue and indirectly damage DNA inside cells).(4) Worms fed gold nanoparticles have up 90 percent fewer offspring.(5)

Once released from the product they were in, silver (and gold) nanoparticles, like all waste, first end up in your city’s sewage. There they inhibit the break-down of other waste products. And this throws into doubt the ability of cities, like San Francisco, to make “organic” compost out of sewage sludge. The silver nano particles are non-biodegradable, so they cannot be removed but continue to circulate and accumulate over time in organisms, including humans. When the nanoparticles reach waterways, they are highly toxic to fish and the aquatic ecosystem. Gold nanomaterials are similar killers.(6).

The nanoparticles used in sunscreen, as well as in food coloring, paint, and other consumer products, are derived from titanium dioxide, the most common nanomaterial used in consumer products today. The few studies done so far indicate that fetal exposure, through the mother, alters the way genes involved in brain development express themselves (that is, how those genes turn on or off, to do what they’re supposed to or not). (7) Manufacturers are now nanosizing lead and cadmium, two metals notoriously toxic and, when nanaosized, incredibly more dangerous. But the manufacturers will not disclose what products they aim to use these materials for.

What about the future, then? Most likely, some nano applications will be helpful, perhaps even miraculous, especially in the field of medicine. For example, the most harmful side effects of today’s treatments such as chemotherapy are a result of drug delivery methods that don’t pinpoint their intended target cells accurately. Researchers at Harvard and MIT are experimenting with using nanoparticles to deliver cancer treatments that target only the tumor without damaging normal tissue.

Perhaps the future will bring a “green nano technology.” For example, a Maryland-based company is trying to make the world’s smallest organic solar cells that could be sprayed onto glass where they’d generate electricity.(8) Kansas State University has developed a non-toxic material, which may absorb toxic air-borne particles even better, scaled down to a nanocrystalline powder (9) Companies claim these technologies will be safe but no regulation yet exists to substantiate such claims. Not to mention that nanomaterials take huge amounts of energy to produce and throw off toxins during their production. (10)

If and when the law that’s supposed to protect us from all manmade chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act, ever comes up for the improvement it desperately needs, new rules for nanomaterials will have to be included. The industry is of course gearing up to resist regulation as “increasingly difficult and far more costly.”(11)

For now, here’s a story with a moral: Samsung manufactures a line of silver nano-coated washing machines called “Silver Care,” capable of removing 99.9 percent of the bacteria in a load of laundry. These machines release 400 billion nano-sized silver ions in each load. When a different manufacturer looked into the usefulness of nanosilver in washing machines compared to regular washing machine technology, they found that washing clothes at 20C (68F) with detergent removed 99.79 percent of bacteria.(12) Thus, they determined, using nanosilver was not worth the environmental cost.

So if the benefit is, for now, minimal, and the health risks are substantial, the conclusion of one of the nation’s lead environmental health scientists, Dr. Jen Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council, makes sense: “Things that are in the nanoscale that are intentionally designed to be put into consumer products should be instantly required to be tested, and until proper risk assessments are done, they shouldn’t be allowed to be sold.”(13 /personal conversation with the author)

Author: Alice Shabecoff for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, January 2011

German Translation of the Article: Nano – Winzige Gefahrstoffe

Resources for Parents

To identify products with nanomaterials:

www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer

While not comprehensive, this inventory gives the public the best available look at the 1,000+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. You can browse products by name, category, company, or country. (This is a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars.)

If you have questions about a product not on that inventory, try to phone the manufacturer.

For a guide to sunscreens without nano ingredients:

Safe Sunscreens

To follow citizen-based research and actions:

Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization

Friends of the Earth Australia

For information on the effect of nanoparticles on women’s reproductive health:

ask for a copy of the study from the University of California at San Francisco: harlessj@obgyn.ucsf.edu

Alice Shabecoff is the co-author of Poisoned for Profit: How Toxins Are Making Our Children Chronically Ill. The book includes guidance for parents on how to reduce risks for the children and how to change the system that allows these toxins in our children’s daily lives.

References:

1. http://www.bund.net/nc/bundnet/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/zurueck/pressemitteilungen/artikel/bund-veroeffentlicht-datenbank-mit-ueber-200-nano-produkten/
2. http://www.nanoceo.net/nanorisks/silver-particles#Toxicity
3. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/fabrics-release-silver-nanoparticles-into-artificial-sweat
4. http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v4/n12/abs/nnano.2009.313.html
5. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101885w
6. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/silver-is-potent-neurotoxicant/
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726979/
8. http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/07/spray-on-solar-glass-a-coming-reality/
9. http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=17426.php
10. http://www.foe.org/nanotechnologys-true-climate-cost-exposed
11. http://www.nanoregnews.com/about.php
12. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10652949
13. Communication with author

More Articles from Alice Shabecoff:

• Our planet, our children – How are your children doing?
• My Mother made me fat
• New Pediatrics to Heal sick Children and keep well Children healthy

Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist

The environmental scientist whose work on dioxins last year prompted governments around the world to suspend the use of some pesticides says there is more to the problem and authorities need to act urgently.

Although dioxins have been banned from the ingredients of pesticides in Australia for more than a decade, many dioxins emerged in the manufacturing process and there was no end-stage monitoring to protect consumers and the public, said University of Queensland scientist Dr Caroline Gaus.

Numerous environmental and health issues were associated with undeclared dioxin impurities, said Dr Gaus, an environmental toxicologist with the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology (ENTOX).

Little information was available about the impurities because they were created during the production process so were not original ingredients.

“We estimate that the amount of these impurities is relatively high compared to other current dioxin sources, but this cannot be adequately quantified due to the commercial protection of data on pesticides use in Australia and internationally,” Dr Gaus said.

She said pesticides with impurities used in high volumes represented a previously neglected but significant and concerning source of dioxins in the environment. They also posed a risk to the health of people handling pesticides, and to consumers.

“Some of these pesticides contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980s and 90s,” she said.

Dioxins are linked to a range of cancers and are considered one of the most toxic man-made chemicals. They can cause adverse health effects in humans and wildlife including cancer, and act on development, reproduction and the endocrine system.

Research by Dr Gaus and PhD student Eva Holt last year showed that a wide range of currently used and globally marketed pesticides contained dioxin impurities, despite the widespread belief that modern pesticides were no longer a significant dioxin source.

As a result of their work, a new wave of suspensions, recalls, restrictions and government reviews on pesticide formulations is under way worldwide, including in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The study analysed 23 different pesticide formulations, containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus four formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. Dioxins were detected in all samples, including some commonly used products. Researchers estimate approximately 200 pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins.

The pesticides are used on crops including cotton, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, beans and peanuts, as well as in parks and recreation areas, at turf farms and plant nurseries.

“In view of the global manufacturing, distribution and use of pesticides, international regulation and monitoring strategies should be developed and implemented to identify, evaluate, and target pesticide dioxin sources at the manufacturing stage,” Dr Gaus said.

Some Recent Restrictions

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) suspended all formulations containing quintozene (pentachloronitrobenzene) from use in April this year due to risk to workers applying the pesticide, which was commonly used on golf courses. The fungicide is under review in New Zealand where it is used on bulbs and turf. The manufacturer recently initiated a voluntary recall of product containing quintozene. The APVMA has recently suspended the pesticide PCNB from sale and a stop sale order has been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

About Dioxins

• Dioxins are toxic compounds which have adverse health effects in humans and wildlife. They can elicit adverse health effects at low levels (cancer, immunotoxicity, reproduction, endocrine function, development).
• These toxicants are managed under the international Stockholm Convention treaty which aims to protect human health and the environment by reducing and eliminating dioxin release to the environment. More than 150 countries, including Australia, have ratified the Stockholm Convention treaty since 2004.
• Most chlorinated pesticides have the potential to contain dioxins if manufactured under certain conditions and processes (e.g. > 150 ºC, alkaline conditions, process including chlorine) – the US EPA lists 161 chemicals (but it is not complete – PCNB for example is not listed). Thus, pesticides were considered historical sources of dioxins and contemporary monitoring data in most current-use pesticides are lacking.
• Dioxin impurities can vary between manufacturing facility, batch, year and country due to variations in production processes and conditions.

About the Research

• 23 different formulations containing 15 different active ingredients currently used in Australia (plus 4 formulations that are no longer registered for use in Australia), including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, were analysed. Dioxins were detected in all samples. These include commonly used pesticides, such as PCNB, MCPA, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil and triclopyr/picloram. Others are Fluroxypyr, Mecoprop, Flumetsulam, Imazamox, Prochloraz, Fenamisphos, Chlorpyrifos, Lindane; 2,4-D; 2,4-DB; Chlorthal amd Quintozene.
• Some of these pesticide formulations contained high concentrations of dioxins, comparable to those known from pesticides which are banned or restricted for use in most countries since the 1980/90s.
• Highest dioxin (1,100-2,000 mg/tonne AI) and TEQ (2,400-5,700 µg/tonne AI) concentrations were found in the fungicide quintozene (also known as pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)).
• Dioxin concentrations in PCNB are comparable to those known from the banned pesticides 2,4,5-T (trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; the key ingredient of Agent Orange). Note: TEQ concentrations in PCNB are at the lower end for those known for 2,4,5-T (approaching the 7,000 µg/tonne used under the Stockholm Convention to estimate historical dioxin releases via past use of 2,4,5-T).
• There are about 6000 pesticide products on the market in Australia (containing ~2000 different active ingredients) – the UQ/ENTOX scientists analysed only a small proportion (0.4 per cent) of these.
• Dioxin concentrations in other pesticides analysed ranged from 61-190 ug TEQ/tonne AI. Impurity concentrations may vary considerably depending on the conditions employed during pesticide production and should therefore be monitored regularly.
• As many pesticides are used in high volumes, they can represent previously neglected but important sources of dioxins to the environment and pose a risk to the health of people handling pesticides.
• Based on these findings, the APVMA have recently suspended the pesticide PCNB, due to dioxin contamination and the associated risks to pesticide applicators. Similarly, the US EPA have issued a stop sale order for PCNB.
• The estimated release of dioxins from the use of PCNB is 27 g TEQ/year (10-90th percentile range: 14-110 g TEQ/year). The dioxin release from this pesticide alone ranks among the top 5 dioxin sources to land in Australia (range 28-110 g TEQ/year).
• The greatest source of uncertainty with these estimates is the lack of information on pesticide use volumes in Australia, which is commercial in confidence and thus not publicly available. This is why the dioxin release associated with many of the pesticides analysed by the UQ/ENTOX scientists could not be estimated to date (has to be modelled)
• The cumulative dioxin release associated with high volume-use of different pesticides may be an important source of dioxins, even if pesticides contain lower dioxin levels than PCNB, e.g. if all pesticide products were contaminated at levels ranging from 100-10,000 µg TEQ/tonne AI and used at a total of 200,000 tonnes per year, then the annual dioxin release would be between 20 and 2000 g TEQ/year.

Note: data on the amount of pesticides used in Australia is not publicly available (commercial in confidence), total pesticide use may be considerably higher than 200,000 tonnes (approximately 2.25 million tonnes of pesticides a year are used in the USA, including 1.18 million tonnes per year of chlorine and hypochlorite pesticides).

The study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant and undertaken by the National Research Institute for Environmental Toxicology, University of Queensland (Eva Holt, Caroline Gaus) in collaboration with the National Measurement Institute in Sydney (Gavin Stevenson) and collaborators from Germany (Roland Weber).

The United Nations Environmental Protection Agency has used the data from the study to develop a burden of toxicology measure for use worldwide. It helps identify and prioritise dioxin sources.

Reference:

University of Queensland, Urgent action needed on dioxins, says toxicologist, December 6, 2010

Related Articles:

• Submissions sought on review of Organophosphate Insecticide Dichlorvos
• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos
• EFSA publishes European overview of Dioxin Levels in Food and Feed

BERKELEY — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health are getting $16.5 million to support three research centers as part of a federal initiative to examine the environmental factors influencing children’s health.

UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health is receiving $16.5 million to support research on environmental health factors and children’s health.

The grants to UC Berkeley are among $54 million recently awarded to 12 university- based centers across the country by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). UC Berkeley is the only institution to have received awards for multiple centers.

The new grants are part of a program that began in 1998 with eight centers funded by the NIEHS and the EPA. The newest funding incorporates the latest biomonitoring tools and advances in epigenetics, or the study of inheritable genetic changes linked to exposure to chemical and environmental agents.

“These awards give testimony to the school’s leadership in the field of environmental epidemiology,” said Stephen Shortell, dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. “This research will address the environmental health risks of some of the state’s most vulnerable populations, and the knowledge gained will lead to new polices and practices that will help mitigate these risks.”

Of the 12 new centers, six will each receive an average of $7.5 million over five years. An additional six, charged with studying less-established environmental determinants of children’s health, will each receive an average of $1.5 million over three years.

The three UC Berkeley centers to be funded are:

• The Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, led by Brenda Eskenazi, professor of maternal and child health and of epidemiology. It will receive $7.5 million. The foundation of this interdisciplinary research program, one of the original eight centers funded in 1998, is a longitudinal study of primarily low-income, Mexican immigrant women and their children living in the agricultural community of California’s Salinas Valley. The researchers are studying the health impact of exposures to such chemicals as agricultural pesticides, flame retardants and DDT.
• The Center for Integrative Research on Childhood Leukemia and the Environment, led by Patricia Buffler, professor of epidemiology. It also will receive $7.5 million. The research program in this center is designed to examine the effects of in utero and early life exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals present in homes — including pesticides, flame retardants and secondhand smoke — and these chemicals’ interplay with genetic and epigenetic factors in the development of childhood leukemia.
• The Center for Environmental Public Health, a new formative center led by Dr. Ira Tager, professor and chair of epidemiology. This center will receive $1.5 million. The overall goal of this center, formed in partnership with researchers from Stanford University, is to study the effects of in utero and childhood exposure to ambient air pollutants and bioaerosols on birth outcomes, regulatory T-cell function and the occurrence of asthma in the lower half of California’s Central Valley. The region studied has some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country.

In addition to the centers at UC Berkeley, the NIEHS and the EPA have awarded $1.5 million to UC San Francisco to fund the Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Children’s Environmental Health Formative Center, led by Tracey Woodruff, UCSF associate professor of reproductive health and the environment. Researchers at that center seek to study and prevent harmful exposures to environmental contaminants during pregnancy.

Reference:

UC Berkeley, UC Berkeley gets $16.5 million for three children’s environmental health centers, 16 November 2010

Related articles:

• Prenatal exposure to pesticide linked to ADHD
• New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk
• A new pediatrics to heal sick children and keep well kids healthy
• Our planet, our children – How are your children doing?

New Study Indicates Higher than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA

COLUMBIA, Mo. – Researchers have discovered that women, female monkeys and female mice have major similarities when it comes to how bisphenol A (BPA) is metabolized, and they have renewed their call for governmental regulation when it comes to the estrogen-like chemical found in many everyday products.

A study published online in the Sept. 20 NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives ties rodent data on the health effects of BPA to predictions of human health effects from BPA with the use of everyday household products. The study was authored by researchers at the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences, Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab (VMDL) and the department of Biomedical Sciences, in collaboration with scientists at the University of California-Davis and Washington State University.

“This study provides convincing evidence that BPA is dangerous to our health at current levels of human exposure,” said Frederick vom Saal, Curators’ professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri. “The new results clearly demonstrate that rodent data on the health effects of BPA are relevant to predictions regarding the health effects of human exposure to BPA. Further evidence of human harm should not be required for regulatory action to reduce human exposure to BPA.”

BPA is one of the world’s highest production-volume chemicals, with more than 8 billion pounds made per year. It can be found in a wide variety of consumer products, including hard plastic items such as baby bottles and food-storage containers, the plastic lining of food and beverage cans, thermal paper used for receipts, and dental sealants. The findings in the current study suggest that human exposure to BPA is much higher than some prior estimates and is likely to be from many still-unknown sources, indicating the need for governmental agencies to require the chemical industry to identify all products that contain BPA.

Several states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, New York and Oregon, have passed bills to reduce exposure to BPA, and similar legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress.

“For years, BPA manufacturers have argued that BPA is safe and have denied the validity of more than 200 studies that showed adverse health effects in animals due to exposure to very low doses of BPA,” said Julia Taylor, lead author and associate research professor at the University of Missouri. “We know that BPA leaches out of products that contain it, and that it acts like estrogen in the body.”

“We’ve assumed we’re getting BPA from the ingestion of contaminated food and beverages,” said co-author Pat Hunt, a professor in the Washington State University School of Molecular Biosciences. “This indicates there must be a lot of other ways in which we’re exposed to this chemical and we’re probably exposed to much higher levels than we have assumed.”

The research team at the University of Missouri includes Taylor, vom Saal and student researcher Bertram Drury in Biological Sciences, as well as Wade Welshons in Biomedical Sciences and George Rottinghaus in the VMDL at MU.

Reference:

University of Missouri, New Study Indicates Higher than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA, September 20th, 2010.

Related articles:

• Impact of chemical BPA in dental sealants used in children
• Lawsuit seeks to ban BPA from food packaging
• 60 Scientists and NGOs Sound Joint Warning on Plastics Chemical
• Everyday Exposure to Dangerous Levels of Toxic Chemical BPA Unavoidable
• Yale: Why BPA leached from ’safe’ plastics may damage health of female offspring
• Study shows: Plastics chemical retards growth, function of adult reproductive cells